Schedule 4 open for drilling!

Many of the Frogblog readers would have supported the fantastic campaign in 2010 to love and protect the Schedule 4 areas of our beautiful country from mining. You will not be impressed by the news that the Government which promised to protect Schedule 4 is now eroding the promise. You will not be impressed by the Minister of Energy and Resources Simon Bridges statement yesterday in the House that drilling rigs would be able to roll into Schedule 4 under the new Crown Minerals Act. Even before this bad news Schedule 4 has been undermined by a number of permits to prospect and explore. One of these permits, over the seabed just offshore of Thames township is currently useless because its work programme includes drilling. The Green Party got a legal opinion on the definition of “minimum impact activities” allowable in Schedule 4 which says you cannot drill, but nekminnit the Government is changing the law.

In McGregor Bay in Coromandel Harbour a company called Sea Holdings have a permit to explore ans have expressed their hope to mine the gold and silver in the sediment in this Schedule 4 area. Nick Smith, Gerry Brownlee and Simon Bridges say they just looking at these areas as part of a wider survey of where minerals and coal might be found. However it is clear from miners statements they expect to be able to mine. The Government is either not being straight up with the miners or with the public.

In addition to this erosion a mining company called “Broken Hills” is seeking an actual mining permit in Schedule 4, conservation land at Tairua on the Coromandel. Simon Bridges won’t tell me what he intends to do with this permit but it is clearly illegal. The Government cannot be trusted to protect Schedule 4 so we need to renew our pressure on them to keep the promise, leave Schedule 4 areas alone, lets love them and protect them!

106 Comments Posted

Do we think they would believe (yeah, right!) that those ‘Great White brassica-munching butterflies hate orange and like yellow!! So-o-o, plant orange calendula(marigolds) among crops, and yellow ones off to the side as a lure! It works; I’ve tried it. They hover…then fly off. So thanks to someone who discovered that and reported on it.

Xero is an excellent example of a bubble company. No profits, significant government subsidy, vastly inflated stock price. I predict it will end in tears for most of the investors though Drury and friends will exit with handsome proceeds no doubt.

I don’t think so. Many “bubble” companies deserved to hit the wall (and especially in the .com era) because they didn’t actually do anything useful and/or didn’t have a plan to generate revenue.

Xero actually do something useful, and collect revenue doing it. They could decide to stop growing today, and they would still have the current customer base and they would still have the same revenue, so they would be into profit and paying dividends to the shareholders.

“You got caught making up bullshit as you haven’t got the slightest clue what the average dairy farm tax is over the last decade.”

Gave you the number $3017. From the same sources that gave us the $1500 odd you accepted in the past but claimed was a bad year.

“But then you often come up with completely fabricated nonsense so why should we be surprised.”

As opposed to your constant fudging of statistics. Or repeating bullshit from the cow cockies Union.

Even if they were correct, which they are not because they have included those that do pay tax, like farm managers and workers on PAYE,
A dairy farm owner, from their own figures, pays much less tax than i do, despite having a 2 mill tax free gain when they retire.

“Like your nutty claims of 20% food inflation over the last year.”

Misrepresentation. Photo.

The year before last for the foods that poor people can afford.
I know that the prices of steak and caviar dropped.

That whirring sound you can hear is Photo desperately trying to find proof that dairy farm owners pay taxes. Instead of claiming WFF and student allowances.

An inner loop IS the central hub in any system I imagine. Having Britomart as it is gives me the hives, but nobody asked me to look at it, nobody asked me to redesign it and I haven’t tried. I reckon your notion is as good as any, but we need a tunnel crossing for the harbor that allows dual trackage and an outer loop that gets around the bulk of the western ‘burbs.

Putting the Airport on the loop is optional. A spoke out to the airport is likely adequate. A spoke IN to Britomart could work if it ran as a shuttle to some part of the loops.

The whole arrangement is, like every other development I’ve ever encountered in this country, penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Auckland Rail already has a loop, from Sylvia Park it branches throught the eastern suburbs and rejoins the NIMT at Newmarket. That loops services more people then the proposed inner loop would.

The loop that should be constructed is the western one. Onehunga> Henderson. That would service far more people again then the inner loop ever would.

The central hub of the rail network is Newmarket. From there a spur lines runs to the CBD for the 15% of the population that has business/pleasure there.

Constructing the western loop would be more beneficial and cheaper (runs along or above the Western Motorway (which actually has been build on the old railway easement).

If the Greens were serious about an integrated rail network in Auckland that would be the first loop constructed followed closely by the Manukau>Botany>Panmure loop. After that or at the same time a Wiri>Airport>Onehunga loop.

Then we start the Britomart>Takapuna> Hellensvile loop.

Now we are getting integrated to meet the widest potential customer base.

We simply need to get away from the idea that Britomart is the central hub, Newmarket is the most logical to best service the public transport needs of the 1 million people that live in Auckland.

That Transmission Gully is a new “route” and that the establishment of such someplace above the high-water mark of 2100 (which I expect to be more than a meter higher than it is now) would be a very good idea. Many roads in Europe follow the same routes established by the Romans… routes are more durable features of civilization than the physical roads themselves are.

The other point I often make to my fellow Greens is that the “road” is a concept that pre-dates the automobile. Not all roads are bad… and for BOTH sides of ALL the arguments over mass transit vs roads – trying to work out the value of a thing by counting the minutes saved in a commute is about as dumb as any accounting malpractice I’ve ever seen anywhere.

Planning for the future is very hard. The only thing harder is adapting to a present you expected but failed to plan for.

Gregor says “Xero is an excellent example of a bubble company. No profits, significant government subsidy, vastly inflated stock price. I predict it will end in tears for most of the investors though Drury and friends will exit with handsome proceeds no doubt.”

Unfortunately, I decided not to buy Xero shares just over two years ago because they had just jumped from $1.35 to $1.50 (they are now $12).

However I’ve still gained thousands from Xero anyway. As a customer, for a few hundred dollars a year, I save ten times that by saving around 6-8 weeks accounts work every year.

As a business, they pull in around $50m a year from just 150,000 clients, and they’ve hardly touched the US and UK markets yet. The costs to service all those clients, and even millions more, now and in the future, are negligible.

Like Trademe, it can expand massively and very quickly, but the base running costs are very very low compared to revenue.

Will the bubble burst? Who knows. But when you have directors, and advisors that include the founder of Trademe, the founder of Paypal, Silicon Valley billionaires, and one of the heads of global marketing at Dell (most of whom have invested significant amounts of their own money), then there’s a possibility that the $12 share price may prove to be cheap (like the $1.50 one was).

In the meantime, Xero is making tens of thousands of NZ businesses far more efficient by saving them huge amounts of money, and generating increasing amounts of paye and gst for the government.

Arana – This is a thing which makes sense but I do not think we are “encouraging” people to live in Auckland, central or otherwise. I think that this is a city which has reached “critical mass” and which is GOING to grow and the opinions of Greens, ACT, National, Labour and NZ First (did I leave anyone out?) be damned.

People LIKE cities, where there is “something happening” and there is “something to do” and where people of like mind can be found to mix with. Ideas, Melting Pot, Culture… lots of stuff go into making a city a place people want to be.

Preferred rail in Auckland is not so simple… Auckland needs a rail outer loop to get people from one suburb to another without going through the lovely and completely congested city center… and I am not counting on that happening in my lifetime. Wellington has a different problem, being a sand bank between the mountain and the sea… all its “bedroom communities” but one are strung out to the North.

No loop I can imagine makes sense. A shuttle between Porirua and Waterloo or Taita would work – perhaps. Nasty hills between.

The object is to not have to drive. For me that is the object because in 20 years I’m probably going to NOT be driving. Nor do I want a lawn to be mowed. Tired of yard work. Don’t want to shovel snow either.

Sorry – rambling there. Auckland is VERY inconvenient in so many ways. Nice harbour but it interferes with the traffic flow.. a lot. Too far from any sources of renewable energy. Too big to be easily accessed without a car. Too congested to be accessed with a car. People want to live there.

Me, I’ll take Wellington in a heartbeat. Much much nicer city. Even with a wind tunnel for a climate.

Arana. All of us current and ex business people/ genuine entrepreneurs in the Greens, unlike in National and Labour, have a say and input into policy.

Such as?

BTW: Why is a good idea to encourage so many people to work in central Auckland? Wouldn’t it be better to spread people out around the country? Yet, the Greens demand expense rail in Auckland, which will surely only be justified if you have many people working in central Auckland.

Photonz1 – Xero is an excellent example of a bubble company. No profits, significant government subsidy, vastly inflated stock price. I predict it will end in tears for most of the investors though Drury and friends will exit with handsome proceeds no doubt.

While plenty of companies make little profit by paying out to the owners, I think you missed the point of my earlier post. Very few of those SMEs have multimillion dollar loans extended by banks on appreciating land assets. No other business would be able to get such sizeable credit access on the same terms as farming.

The big winners of course are the banks. The big losers are the taxpayer.

Gregor says “Her logic is that any business running at a loss for more than 5 years should be regarded as a hobby”

So that would wipe out a huge number of New Zealand’s most successful growth companies.

Look at Xero software – 7 years old and yet to make a profit but is now a billion dollar NZ company with over 100% sales growth year on year, opening offices around the world, and employing more and more Kiwis in high paying jobs.

That would also close down most biotech companies.

Some very successful companies put everything into growing – take on more and more workers, year after year, without making a profit.

However the amount of gst and paye they provide to the government grows at the same rate that they do.

And then there’s thousands of small and medium businesses across the country who employ tens of thousands of people, and make zero profit every year because the owner simply takes all the earnings as wages.

Her logic is that any business running at a loss for more than 5 years should be regarded as a hobby – similar to the US I understand – and cites farming as the major tax rort in this arena; running consistent tax losses or extremely low profits of the back of massive debt, and pocketing significant capital gains.

“So, take the number of dairy entities (17,244) and the amount of tax they paid ($26m). Therefore average figure for tax paid per legal entity in the dairy sector is $1,507. If there is any other way to derive the average, then please let me know.”

This is the figure Photo accepted in past posts. Claiming it was a bad year.

Well using the same method over time an average year works out at $3017.

Is that because it’s not really an average over a decade – but a really low figure for a bad year?

Or perhaps it’s because it’s the business tax paid i.e. The farm makes $100,000 of which $90,000 is paid to the farmer as wages (from which he pays income tax), and the remaining $10,000 is farm profit, which is taxed at $3000.

he Greens, I know, are almost all entrepreneurs, SME owners or at least highly qualified professionals.

Your MPs don’t appear to share that background, which is where the problem lays, I suspect. Same goes for Labour.

Why doesn’t your party elect more experienced business people to the rank of MP?

Especially when we are paying for a business model of farming land which would be unsuitable and uneconomic without bailouts.

We shouldn’t be. A flood or drought is a business risk and one that should be met by the business i.e. the farmer. Whilst the taxpayer continues to subsidise that risk, then the land prices will continue to be inflated. If that risk is incorporated into the business, the land value corrects to reflect it.

Kerry says “The Greens, I know, are almost all entrepreneurs, SME owners or at least highly qualified professionals.”

The problem is how many Greens MPs are or have been entrepreneurs, business owners etc.

How many have ever in their lives even employed someone? Or ever owned shares?

Even working in the private sector for any amount of time in any reasonable position is pretty rare among Green Party MPs. That’s what the significant majority of the population do for a living.

None of which can be considered personal criticism, but an indication of how the Greens selection process is so narrow it has virtually zero representation of all these entrepreneurs, business people, you talk about, or even those vast majority of people who work in the private sector.

Well put, Kerry, each and every one of the points you make hit the targets (Arana’s non-sense and the clumsy equivalent from photonz). And Gregor, spot on. It’s shaping-up to be a bad day for the RWers on Frogblog.

Search and surveillance bill.
Reserve Bank Act.
GCSB powers.
CERA.
Taking tax payers money and bank accounts to bailout failures.
Overriding local democracy. Auckland!
More police powers.
Proceeding with ideological State controlled changes against the best intersects and wishes of the majority, such as power privatization.,
Ensuring 20% of children live in poverty.
Removing the right of workers to withdraw their labour.
Removing the right of low paid workers to have enough to live on.
Signing up to “Free trade agreements which kill our local econmy.

Korea is about to start WWIII, there were terrrorists attacks on the Boston Marathon, and greenfly’s biggest world event for today?……

….who looked up a phone number …..several years ago.

This is great for Key – it just makes the opposition look so small minded, and concerned about minutiae and petty point scoring instead of important issues. Not the sort of people you’d want to put in charge of a country.

Holy sh*t, he starts off saying he has no idea how he got the phone number. He says this twice. Then about one minute later he says he rang Queensland Directory Service (and how would he get that phone number ffs?)(and is if a PM would do that ffs). Then when questioned on how he got a cellphone number when they don’t give those out he seems to remember that the call was diverted and that was how he got the number.

Who does Key expect to believe such a pile of bullsh*t?

First he cannot remember a single thing. Then instantly he can remember explicit detail, and detail which is patently absurd no less.

F*ck off Key – you’re embarassing the entire country.

and…

It gets worse vto. 15 minutes later he seeks the leave of the house to correct that answer.

There is nothing new under the sun, photonz, although many of the ideas I present to my ‘conventional’, ‘conservative’ peers, seem to them too modern to handle, so you’ll doubtless empathize with me and feel my frustration at their stick-in-the-mud-ness. My point is that it’s the flexibility of thinking, open-mindedness and willingness to attend to ideas from outside of (their) squares that is the issue I’m talking about, not any particular idea, although I have some I could suggest that would have you pinging around inside of your square like an over-heated cluster-fly, I’m certain.

greenfly says “Introducing even simple concepts from my background (fodder willows as insurance against drought, for example) is met with blank stares or outright disdain. This is especially the case with farmers on the council who “know how to farm” and have been doing so for years.”

This is not some new idea – drought prone regions of NZ have been doing this for over a century.

Key had to return at the end of Question Time to “correct” his earlier claim that he had rung “Directories” in Australia to find Fletcher’s number (he’d earlier claimed he had it! Ha!), because his office had informed him by phone during Q-time, that his claim might not be true, and that his assistant-or-someone might have made the call! This is a comedy of errors, only not funny – it’s pathetic! Key is a pathetic character making mistake after mistake after mistake. his office has to watch him now like hawks, and even then, he stuffs it up in front of Parliament and the public. Good grief! He wouldn’t answer Peters’ simple question, “How many times did you ring Fletcher?” had to have it in writing, he burbled! Pathetic, just pathetic. how far we have fallen in our expectations of how our Prime Minister should behave. Pathetic and sad. I wonder if the news will carry that sad story. We’ll soon see.

greenfly says “Just now in the House, Key was asked whether he had made more than one telephone call to Ian Fletcher, prior to that man’s appointment to the role of Head Spook. ”

That anyone seriously expects a PM to remember how many times they talked to someone 20,000 or 30,000 phone calls ago (or be called a liar if they don’t remember), gives then much more leeway with the public.

Most people see it’s for what it is – an absurdly ridiculous question that would be beyond the memory of 99.99% of people.

Sorry, Catherine – wandered right off the subject, basically.
But for such important issues as Drilling etc., perhaps it WOULD be possible to have “out-on-the-street” petitions, AND e-petitions? We, the public, fervently would like to have a chance to have our say, in whatever way we can, and in support of your and others’ efforts. It might add a surprising number to the total. All those citizens who can’t get out signing petitions, but would wish to do so at home, would hardly be likely to go out and sign a second time, so that’s probably not a problem.
I hope it’s worth considering. I have seen so many worthwhile victories; and I, for one, have 80 Facebook Friends overseas who sign on issues of concern worldwide, no matter the country petitioning – e.g. fracking, drilling, Ross Sea, Maui Dolphins etc etc.!

If more of their land is used for planting “insurance” trees, then they lose that land for grazing. If their insurance risk can be passed onto the taxpayer, as is the case now, then it is rational (rational in a business sense) not to plant insurance trees and keep more land for grazing.

If we remove the handouts for drought relief, or create a debt against their assets, then some farmers will collapse as a result of drought. The farms will then be taken over until someone with more foresight buys the farm i.e. someone capable of insuring against drought. Under such circumstances, planting trees looks much more rational, from a business perspective.

I don’t like this situation any more than you do, although for slightly different reasons.

“I support your idea. It’s a good idea. But I know why the farmer resists it.”
Thank you, Arana. I think though, that you don’t know why the farmers resist it, if you’re thinking that they have become reliant on Government handouts and therefore won’t plant willows as insurance against drought. You sell them short if you do so. The slowness of uptake of ideas needed to counter changing environmental conditions is far more complex than you suggest and it’s that problem that I’ve tried to alert (you) to with my talk of ‘status quo’ thinking.

Yes, great summaries by oldlux and greenfly as to what the Green Party faces and endures and has to counteract from those with the opposite mindset.

Their long, hard battle and hard work has brought them to where they are today, with a larger share of the population understanding something of the environmental and social crises which man faces -here and everywhere on the planet.

I have experienced the ‘shut-out-ness’ of seeing and thinking towards “different” goals. Never mind feeling shut-out, ‘though (shut-out from what? That within which you don’t want to be, anyway!!) Never mind referring to what the opposition thinks and is doing? we usually know of that..

I simply would like the public and myself to hear, re each issue which arises, a fuller expression, perhaps, of how the Greens FEEL about it, without reference to other parties; what the implications are for people and the country; what the Greens and all of us who are concerned about it, and can relate to your concern, might do about it; i.e. presenting yourselves strongly and separately from the opposition, so that your (and our) concentration is fully upon your approach, and your (our) solutions.
Thankyou. I hope that makes sense?!

Unsurprisingly, Arana misses my meaning. Curiously, this was the subject of my comment. Her inability to ‘get’ my meaning illustrates perfectly what I was saying to the polite and reasonable dbuckley. Arana has read into my comment her own ideology, thus missing what it was I was saying. I don’t want to cite my earlier reference to ‘blockheads’, so won’t (to use the ‘Key-style’ method of debate)

Yes, thanks for your view, dbuckley. Just now in the House, Key was asked whether he had made more than one telephone call to Ian Fletcher, prior to that man’s appointment to the role of Head Spook. He answered that he would have to have that question in writing before he could answer it. You say, economical with the truth, others would say he’s not telling the truth, that he could answer that question without having it presented in writing, thus, he’s lying. A person like Key relies on the fact that such behaviour can be ‘parsed’ and hair-split in a way that results in confusion and unsureness – his favourite place to have ordinary people.

Can I ask, do you think Key has been obscuring the truth during his time as Prime Minister?

Lordy, what a deep question.

Do I think Key is honest as the day is long? No, I think he is a member of the school of thought perhaps best stated as “economical with the truth”. I don’t think he is an outright liar. Its too hard to be a liar on the scale he would need to be, as you have to have the memory of Sheldon Cooper, and I think its clear that JK does not have that capability.

The Green answer to me is about taking enough, accepting that sharing is how we can all survive the process, and by focussing on quality of product, and quality of human wellbeing and interaction, we will find solutions to the needs we all have.

Good summary of what “Green” is all about, but the Green Party don’t function in a world where that is the norm. There is an enourmous distance from where we are today, to even a semblance of a balanced environment.

Unless and until there is the shit/fan interface moment, humanity isn’t terribly interested (1) in the environment, and thus the absolute best that can be achieved today is to try to do less harm. Try to do more (2) and the people will revolt, and the Green Party will become irrelevant.

Thank you, oldlux. It’s a rough guide really, but being faced with the situation almost daily, I get to think about it a lot. Making progress in the face of it is the challenge. I believe I am, and I also believe that Russel and Metiria et al, are doing very well indeed against such forces. Very well indeed.

dbuckley – the Political Scientist has an especially perceptive mind and I’m pleased he is focusing it on politics. There are others of his ilk that I regard highly for their views, some of whom comment here on Frogblog. Can I ask, do you think Key has been obscuring the truth during his time as Prime Minister?

Yes, enjoyed that, learned a lot about humour on the way, but came away thinking that the reference to “Will the real John Key step forward?” is actually quite deep, and indicative of the article as a whole. Key clearly has “something”, and whatever that “something” is, it works damned well, coating him in Teflon such that the guy is (or, at least, has so far proven to be) invincible, but no-one can quite put their finger on what it is exactly Key has got.

I wonder if my own experience mirrors that of “The Greens”, in that I’ve been forever learning about, discovering, trialing, creating ‘green’ ways of living, but where I interface with bureaucracy (read local body politicians), I find little experiential common ground, that is, they haven’t ‘experimented’ with green systems the way I have and because of that, can’t frame their proposals/ideas in a way that invites enthusiastic, creative input from me, based on my experiences. They frame the argument and force the discussion to follow their familiar ‘territory’. Introducing even simple concepts from my background (fodder willows as insurance against drought, for example) is met with blank stares or outright disdain. This is especially the case with farmers on the council who “know how to farm” and have been doing so for years. It’s their way or no way. I suspect the Green MPs suffer this effect every waking hour in and around Parliament. The language/thinking of the status quo teams forge the argument and limit it to what they know. It’s because of this effect that Green MPs are forever challenging/objecting to/protesting the thinking/actions of the Government, be they red or blue, because they are not even beginning to occupy ‘green-space’ where the thinking is so much more invigourating, responsible, creative, sustainable etc. So, we protest, being shut out, to a greater or lesser extent, by the block-headedness of the other ‘teams’. At least, that’s my view.

If the Greens sound negative it is very likely because you stopped listening. Many/most of the issues being articulated are around the negatve effect of trying to grow an economy when resources are no longer in endless supply. This includes the mechanisms that clean and replenish the soil, air, water. I believe they are that effected that human health and wellbeing are being compromised, creating social decline and despair. John Key, who is well off by investing in this growth model, looks to sustaining the growth at all costs, and people think he has answers to do this, and want to believe him as they have invested a lot of time, effort, and emotion in the pursuit of utopia.
The Green answer to me is about taking enough, accepting that sharing is how we can all survive the process, and by focussing on quality of product, and quality of human wellbeing and interaction, we will find solutions to the needs we all have.
What is negative to this process is anti-social obsession with needing more than everyone else. John Key’s PR image cannot remove from my perception that he is in this group, and I don’t need a golden image to tell me that I can have a good life.
The saddest thing that all cultures that have gone down his path have ended as their resources have. That is why the US is involved in so many wars.

..So promote the change policies by marketing the benefits, by marketing how the changes will be brought about..

Gerrit, I absolutely agree.

Greenfly:

PLEASE, Greens, (and/or Labour), let us hear in your news-bites (now, while awareness of the ‘deserts’ is acute), the push for farmers to grow, e.g., tree-lucerne to counteract and prevent drought, and to cater for the moisture-cycle. (I’ve taken the liberty of e-mailing Nathan Guy and FedFarm…but….well…!) There is a great amount of knowledge and wisdom among the general public; I think if THEY learn of better ways, that provides a big push for progress on an issue. Because now that the drought conditions are easing a little, it would be human nature that our farmers might forget somewhat (?) about the suffering they and the animals went through – until next year’s drought, which unfortunately could be as bad or worse. I hope they will just remember that farmer whom the drought did not affect, and so start to beat the trend at last. (Did you see those healthy fodder trees, and healthy, contented cows! So gratifying.) And that is only one issue…
I think perhaps when people hear more of the positive possibilities, rather than current negative conditions, they would then realise how inadequate or unsatisfactory a current situation is compared with the solution, and would be more motivated to try to do something about it. “People are much more motivated by being shown the benefits, rather than just the problem..”, I read somewhere recently.

I acknowledge that some solutions do get presented, but this desertification is a particularly vital issue…everywhere.

Farmers do not plant tree lucerne because of government policy, they will plant it if it helps their farming income. So promote the change policies by marketing the benefits, by marketing how the changes will be bought about. That is the message the Greens (and Labour) should be pushing, not this constant attack on brand Key.

Being an activist is easy. It’s harder to be constructive. It’s a mindset you find in entrepreneurs.

They see a problem that needs fixing, and they go fix it. They don’t create a banner, print a few cute bumper stickers, form marches of the faithful, and get all shouty. That may work for social issues, but it’s no good for economic, fiscal and business issues.

Tree lucerne, Gerrit? Yes, and fodder willows. The Greens, especially those who farm, know all about these and many, many other arid-landscape-suitable crops. Is it not permeating through to the public? I wonder why not? I had the interesting experience yesterday, at a meeting of farmers, dairy industry and fertilizer company reps, the farmers union (FF)and territorial authorities, where they were excitedly discussing innovations in crop types, pasture management, cultivation methods etc, that I have been hearing about for 20 years through “other” conduits (read “organic/natural farmers”. Sometimes I just despair of the lag. Yesterday, I talked about the threat of the Great White brassica-munching butterfly to Southland’s winter brassica crops and could “hear” the (inaudible) groans (stupid greeny). So it goes.

Respectfully, dbuckley, I suggest that your education didn’t stop when you left school, as evidenced by your ability to form your own views and put them forward in a way that invites meaningful interaction. Your challenge on the tyrannical DP (you say ‘dead’ – you didn’t topple him literally, did you?) Your school peers were what I (and others)call ‘authoritarians’ and are a worry. I’m guessing the love John Key as well. They sound the sort.

Awww, shucks, thanks. But you overestimate my learn-ed-ness, my education ended at the equivalent of NCEA level 1… I was headed for what was then called the sixth form, but there was something to do with an argument with the deputy head.

And in the way that history often gets rewritten, to perhaps my astoundment, many of my former school peers, several of who were thrashed to within an inch of their lives by this evil tyrant, are now calling the (now very dead) ex-deputy head some sort of superhero…

Where are they?? Do you see how frustrating it is – the way we don’t tend to learn from others? Yet the wellbeing of stock, farmers and the economy could be greatly improved,

Absolutely, yet the Greens and other opposition parties are still playing the ball (Attacking the Key brand) and not debating (not even promoting) the issues such as you have outlined. They are not learning from others what political strategies work and which dont.

That is where the change in tack needs to focus, not in attack policies but in change policies.

That was my point.

And you can see the frustration, felt by many, that we don’t see enough promotion of change policies from opposition parliamentarian.

Farmers do not plant tree lucerne because of government policy, they will plant it if it helps their farming income. So promote the change policies by marketing the benefits, by marketing how the changes will be bought about.

That is the message the Greens (and Labour) should be pushing, not this constant attack on brand Key.

What policies will the Greens promote to facilitate and encourage farmers to grow tree lucerne?

Greenfly is a great proponent but I have yet to hear any common sense and articulated policy statement from the Greens.

dbuckley… strangely enough I didn’t laugh. My perception of the ability of the average Kiwi to perceive a con in progress is that it is a quantity best viewed with an electron microscope. That I personally can see the signals does not give me any expectations of the electorate in general. Especially now that I have been here a while.

Hence my requirement that we get the hell out of the house but stay off the street and push into the public conversations. Many people still do not appreciate that there is more to our party than a movement. We win by being credible and visible and damned right Metiria put her foot in it… as happens with honest people who are apt to say what they think. She was thinking two steps ahead of where we are, and for politics THAT’s wrong too.

We are what we are. … and yes it would help if Labour could appear a bit less hopeless.

If we go through another 3 years of Key & Co this country will be so completely nackered that we’ll all have to move to Oz.

dbuckley, you are a gentleman (and I’m guessing, a scholar). You said:
“You’ve missed the point, which is to say I haven’t been sufficiently clear, so let me have another go.”
That’s diplomacy at its best, right there. Naturally, I have looked again at your claim and find that I agree with your point. That said, here on Frogblog, we are not the sort who trust Key no matter what, and keenly unravel his web of deceit around whatever the issue of the day might be.
As for toppling him and his crafty henchmen and women, that’s another issue altogether. Criticising his lack of trustworthiness here though, is certainly not out of bounds, I believe.
“JFK” moment! Crikey!

Gerrit, Referring back to my comment which you quoted…I do not feel, nor did I wish to be, patronising. I’d better take one example of an issue not understood, perhaps – but certainly not being handled well. How many folk believe, or would like to admit, that the earth (the soil) is at risk because removal of more than two-thirds of its tree-cover will threaten the water-table; and that super-phosphate kills all the worms and insects, hence no holes in the soil for water-absorption, therefore run-off and flooding? It’s so painful to see what farmers and animals are going through; how many want to believe the droughts could become increasingly severe? I’ve seen them over the years: not a tree in sight to provide the moisture-cycle of earth-to-tree-to-atmosphere-to-earth.
The desert farmlands, this year; and the one farmer reported-on who had NO drought – no problems. Trees everywhere among stock. Healthy cows browsing the plentiful leaves! It’s been proven, yet still not believed or utilised, that tree-lucerne, which fixes nitrogen in soil, is excellent fodder, and can withstand dry conditions better than some other trees. Where are they?? Do you see how frustrating it is – the way we don’t tend to learn from others? Yet the wellbeing of stock, farmers and the economy could be greatly improved, easing the very difficult, stressful conditions they are having to cope with…. Surely the way to vote is for ISSUES, not the devil you know or don’t know – voting on a human personality…and thinking that his ideas alone can solve the most important problems in the country or on the planet…

……..to all thinking people – those who face facts and try to help find solutions. And the reason most (?) NZers don’t want to hear them or be forced to concentrate upon them, is because most don’t want to understand or admit that there are grave problems, and many, many issues which could be handled and solved much more intelligently and wisely than they are being!!

Rubbish, Most people know about the problems, it is the solutions offered that are not being sold effective enough to change opinions.

If you believbe shearer will “come good” good luck to you.

The latest mumblings, we are going to lower electricity prizes. Hooray cried the populace. How they asked. Mumbler mumble mumble from Shearer (Labour does not dont know how yet!!).

And Russel Normans latest. Builds a train loop in Auckland that most thinking people realise will only services the 30K who live or work in central Auckland and paid for by scrapping transmission gulley road development in Wellington so that access to and from Wellington is compromised.

Thinking people see that type of leadeship as pretty useless. Hence they will continue to vote for the “devil they know”.

Have you considered that your above statement may be considered patronising in the extreme?

The leadership needs to be more than “believable”, he has to be what a load of people call “a nice man”.

So very true.

This is one of the elements that puzzles me about NZ politics the most. I think it has to do with our country’s deeply ingrained anti-intellectualism and a reaction to the quasi-totalitarian style of HC.

I get the impression that JK has actually dumbed himself down as a result of focus grouping to appeal to the electorate – his poor diction, fake jokey blokiness etc.

I always feel that I am on the receiving end of some form of cognitive dissonance – one one hand rich and powerful Titan of Business who can Get This Country Moving (TM), on the other a backslapping BBQer ready to crack me open a beer.

The disconnect is how brand Key can simultaneously pitch “Presidential” and “Nice Guy” without collapsing in on itself.

Yes it will but they need a believable leadership from an potential alternative governmental party, with sound policies that people can relate to, to vote for.

Pre-Key, yes, that would have been enough. But Key has changed the landscape. The leadership needs to be more than “believable”, he has to be what a load of people call “a nice man”. Or woman. Likeable. Convincing. (Don’t laugh) Honest.

..

(Keep scrolling down)

.

.

.

.

.

.

Go on, admit it, you laughed, didn’t you. And that’s where your judgement is screwed, because those people who keep voting Key in believe he is honest, and by spitting your coffee all over the keyboard (for which I apologise, but the point had to be made) you’ve just illustrated that you don’t get it. And until you get it, you wont understand what needs to be done. And that is part of the reason why Key will keep coming back.

To quote Terry Goodkind: “”The mice think they are right, but my cat eats them anyways.” “This is the point, reality is nothing, perception is everything.””

Ok, I admit it, I have no idea who Terry Goodkind is, but I know the quote and Google is a terrible thing…

The fact that the right wing twits are active posting on this blog is a sign we are suceeding or they would be out there fleecing someone. They are dead scared people will read the good posts and start to think

Don’t flatter yourself.

I do it because I enjoy debating and one simply can’t do that at The Standard. There’s no point doing so at KiwiBlog, as that’s not debating, just preaching to the choir.

Gerrit…Further to comment about the Greens: someone on talkback this a.m. remarked that “the Greens’ pronouncements are always on the negatives”… “why can’t we hear something positive for a change..” !! As I view the Green Party’s concerns, I would say they pinpoint the many vital issues which are of serious concern to all thinking people – those who face facts and try to help find solutions. And the reason most (?) NZers don’t want to hear them or be forced to concentrate upon them, is because most don’t want to understand or admit that there are grave problems, and many, many issues which could be handled and solved much more intelligently and wisely than they are being!! Therefore of course they do sound negative in bringing them to the public’s attention – because they ARE negative, need to be faced, and positive alternatives introduced – which I see the Greens doing.
I also think David Shearer will prove his worth. Seems to me his character and experiences are too wide-ranging to fit, as yet, into our smaller-country set-up. He might have to ‘prune’ his awareness down a little, in order to address our SPECIFIC situations?

Yes it will but they need a believable leadership from an potential alternative governmental party, with sound policies that people can relate to, to vote for.

As I said earlier, Labour is led by incompetants and staffed by has been’s and clueless want to be’s.

Greens are better, but again, as the female co leader latest statement that Maori kids be encouraged to grow cannabis, capable of putting their foot into mouth equally as well.

As New Zealand does not at present have a viable oppostion in parliament capable of stepping up to become the government, voters currently are going for the “devil you know” rather then to the useless oppostion we have in parliament currently.

People will vote for better alternatives, when and if they present themselves.

I think the trust for John Key is based on the people know something is wrong with the economy and climate and have trusted the party that traditionally looks after our investments – property right.
However, as time goes by more and more are seeing that his answers create more of the same, unstable economy – food/water unsafety. This is really clear when you listen to talk back.
Continual stating the obvious about the real solutions in as many ways as possible will finally get through, just as nuclear campaigning and Mining resistance worked before.
The fact that the right wing twits are active posting on this blog is a sign we are suceeding or they would be out there fleecing someone. They are dead scared people will read the good posts and start to think. People like John Key can’t suceed if people think for themselves, thus the changes to education, the benefit regimes, to make people dependant so they have to take the crumbs at the work table.
Kia kaha to those who have the compassion, the foresight, and the skills to make a difference.The critical mass will build to eventually tip the scales.

Much of the Oppositions energy is going toward showing the country how Key is not trustworthy and is not doing what is right.

You’ve missed the point, which is to say I haven’t been sufficiently clear, so let me have another go.

It is about trust and confidence in the leader and believing that whatever he does is right. Yes, those all-important swing voters believe that JK can do no wrong, they trust him with their world, and their confidence both in him, and ultimately, that they have chosen the right leader, is unshakable. Thier proof of this is that they can see that nothing bad is happening to them. Or perhaps, to them, yet.

Thus “showing the country how Key … is not doing what is right” is doomed to fail, because, by definition, the people (those who count) believe he will do the right thing.

I know its something of a circular argument, but that is the uphill struggle that trying to unseat JK brings with it. There is no point in continuing to attack him, because, in the eyes of the small number of voters whose votes count, its all just seen as petty jealousy against their chosen president, who, by definition, can do no wrong.

The opposition need to find someone who has the same qualities as Key, or bascially, just hang around twiddle thumbs.

Yes, it really is that easy. Or hard. It might be more rewarding to hope for a JFK moment.

bjchip: Just an ‘aside’…in my case (78) with a particularly ‘degenerated’ neck, I don’t get out among the people much for collecting signatures, so I sign dozens of petitions for vital environmental, animal and social ’causes’, wherever they are available,…and ring talkback about ditto. For me, that is at least something..and I really appreciate having them available – (as, I’m sure, do any other folk who are not so active now, and are concerned about current conditions, here and world-wide.) And I truly admire the dedicated, tremendous amount of work done by all those who do circulate, talk to people and collect the vast numbers of signatures..

“It is about trust and confidence in the leader to do what is right”
Much of the Oppositions energy is going toward showing the country how Key is not trustworthy and is not doing what is right.

The Green Party is not “hoping to win by default”. They are front-footing almost every issue. What they are not prepared to do, it seems to me, is let bad decisions and bad intent by the NAct Government pass without challenge. Good on them.

It seems the opposition are hoping to win by default. If they can put Key in just the wrong shade of light, perhaps, maybe, due to quirks in the MMP system, they will manage to scrape and claw their way over the line.

This is not a presidential approach. It is not an approach that displays any confidence.

We are now in an era of presential politics, where that small proportion of voters who determine the outcome of the election are now thinking about who is going to be the next PM, rather than the policies on offer. It is about trust and confidence in the leader to do what is right, rather than an individual determination of what is right. And the simple fact of the matter is that none of the contenders for the post of labour led coalition PM (including the current incumbent) are credible presidents, whereas you can’t deny that Key is.

As an exercise, look through the Labour Party collection of MPs, and consider who would make a galvanising president. Look at the current opposition front bench. Depressing, isn’t it. I think the list of contenders is vanishingly small, especially since Darren blotted his copybook. It is difficult to overstate what a loss to Labour his departure represents.

So until there is a Labour lead made of “the right stuff” will there be no popular revolt against Key. However, the people will get bored of Key eventually, and I think “eventually” means the 2020 election. And I’m already on record on who I think will be the Labour head at that time.

The second really important thing is that when the transition to a lefty government occurs, it will only be a tadge to the left of the current centre-right regime. A tad. A smidgeon. It will be a centre-left government, so the reality is that only the extremes of the current mob will be curtailed; most policy will be very little different from where we are today.

So there may be a reduction or even an end to the asset sales programme, but there won’t be any genies (or GINIs) going back in bottles. And there wont be a wholesale move towards are more environmentally-aware government. Certainly no socialism.

For a lot of folk who are unashamedly left-wing, they will continue to be disappointed with ther representation at the government level. I, of course expect no change in my personal level of non-representation, more a case of meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.

What on earth processed her to suggest Maori kids growing Cannabis should be encouraged to grow more as it showed entrepreneurial skills.

Even Hone Harawira squirmed in his seat with that one (Who is winning votes up North with his total anti drug stance).

What she should have said was the the Green party would channel that cannabis growing drive and entrepreneurship into growing fruit and vegetables for the poor kids in their area plus to supply the commercial growers markets and farmers markets.

Heck they have land to grow crops, infrastructure to distribute, cash-flow to invest and skills to be harvested.

Greens would have scored far more brownie points in believability and votes by being an effective opposition party RIGHT NOW with innovative policy to turn figuratively “swords into plows”.

Instead the co leader has undermined any good the party has done recently by a stupid statement, that leaves the other 10% of voters needed, by the Greens to become a serious parliamentary party, to look elsewhere.

If you want the Labour/Greens to be in government in 2014 get serious. Stop making fundamental mistakes and discuss with Labour strategies that will benefit both parties.

Mind you Labour might well be a lost cause. Their latest bill board attack on Natioanl in support of Len Brown is not being well received. Nor is Len Browns policies and his push to force acceptance of the Unitary Plan.

Greens need to be mindful of the backlash that will hit Len Brown if he continues as he has been going (A mayor lives on a lifestyle block not zoned for development whist forcing voters into the shadows of multistory shoebox apartments — more left wing hypocrisy well noted by many Auckland voters).

How can the Greens profit from this backlash? What leadership will be shown?

Mind you the negative press the Green mayor of Wellington receives is not a good indication that current Green policies are well received there.

Maybe time for a complete rethink on Auckland policy for the Greens?

Something that Aucklanders can relate to, not this type of wishy washy untruth.

Actual petitions with actual signatures where we actually go out and actually talk with individuals who get to recognize that we are not the mad communist nutters that right wing liars paint us, will have the most effect.

We can’t work with this government, they don’t play well with others, and we can’t accept what they are doing to a country that is OURS as much as it is theirs.

I am tired of liars winning. To get them to NOT win will take a lot more of us going out and talking to the innocent believers of such lies, and persuading them that this is a political party, not a movement, and that it is about our planetary and national environment, not communism, and that it is wrong to eat your children’s future, which is basically what sustainability is all about.

Go out and TALK to people. It is vastly more difficult for them to regard you as a commie nut job in person, than when you march down the street with banners as a mob. The petitions give one-on-one exposure and that exposure is critical. The risk is that they are perceived as useless.

The only way to get Key and his band of liars out of office is to educate the electorate. That means publicly visible and accessible Greens. We have to go out there and present our arguments and educate. Not JUST our MPs… we ALL have a responsibility. We ALL have to get ourselves focused on the goal, educated about some issues so as to be able to discuss them intelligently, and ready to handle arguments.

That’s something to TRAIN in if you put yourself in the position, to be aware of the favored ploy of the right wing, which is to claim we take some position we do not and then challenge us to defend that false position. It is something we need to recognize, we all joined the party coming from different places. Focus on sustainability is common, but knowledge about all the places it affects us is impossible.

I can and will cheerfully educate people about our increasingly less benign climate.

Someone asking me about our fisheries gets a few words about the risk and passed on to someone else or our policy pages because I did not join the party because I understand fisheries. I joined because I understand climate.

We each have our strengths. We must use them… and we must take the effort out to people so that people understand that we share THEIR concerns, not the concerns of the wealthy owners of the National Party.

…and that is how to get rid of the National Party nutjobs and (one hopes) get some honest opposition in their place.

Viv, e-petitions I receive and sign from America etc bring about one victory a week. e.g “After your 85,000 signatures, the U.S. military have agreed to stop using live dogs for target practice..”, and in California a court ruled that a fracking operation was unjustified because of the damage to air, water, health etc.; a country has agreed to stop exporting live chimps for experimentation; a University has agreed to stop animal-testing for cosmetics….etc. Greenpeace and others have successes…. There are small and huge victories, all the result of petitions signed… so gratifying for those who care deeply about an issue..
But again, perhaps there are not the numbers in N.Z., or not the vehemence…??

How stupid do Bridges, Smith & the Key-party think ‘Joe-kiwi’ is ?
“prospecting is not proof of approval to mine” (or words to that effect)B-S

Why would these mining companies waste their cash prospecting, if they are not being given the nod to mine in Schedule 4 lands ??

‘The clean, green DREAM & 100% pure B-S’..
“you can fool some people ALL the time, All the people SOME time.. BUT NOT ALL people, ALL the time” ….. “WAKE UP Key-party & smell the STINK you are making !”

The lying bastards just don’t let up do they. Nick Smith claimed the prospecting permits were just so geologists could get a wider picture of the region then Straterra came out and said we do want to mine, we want to undermine schedule 4 from the edges.

Could you possibly launch an e-petition on the issue? When tens of thousands sign, at least the powers-that-be know the extent of the protesting voice! Or do you feel we haven’t the numbers in New Zealand? There are environmental and other issues of concern to folk overseas as well – and they sign, just as we sign their petitions on matters of general concern in the world, regardless of the country..